Marshfield Clinic
Legal name: Dickinson County Healthcare System
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 382780429
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Marshfield, WI, US
- Phone
- (800) 782-8581
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $144,253,283
- Expenses
- $154,737,829
- Assets
- $78,971,909
- Liabilities
- $45,252,542
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN HOERNEMAN MD (BOARD MEMBER/INTERIM MCHS CEO)
- AMANDA SHELAST (PRESIDENT MMC-DICKINSON)
- SUSAN TURNEY MD (FORMER MCHS CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- SUSAN TURNEY MD (FORMER MCHS CEO): $2,241,715 total reported compensation
- BRIAN HOERNEMAN MD (BOARD MEMBER/INTERIM MCHS CEO): $1,623,181 total reported compensation
- JEANETTE WOJTALEWICZ (INTERIM MCHS CFO): $972,510 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To care, comfort and cure.
What it reported doing in 2024
Dickinson county healthcare system (dchs) includes a 49-bed, general medical and surgical hospital located in iron mountain, Michigan and primary care clinics in iron mountain, kingsford and norway, Michigan and florence, Wisconsin. Dchs serves communities in Michigan's central upper peninsula and northern Wisconsin by providing a broad range of high quality acute care including inpatient, outpatient, diagnostic, and specialty services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.6%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -7.3%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 7 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 95.6% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $138.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $18.9M reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.